Jupiter and Saturn Transits

Periodically I drag out my ephemeris (yeah, I know, old-school hardcopy guy) and take a look at planetary transits (conjunctions and major aspects only) for my and my wife's natal and progressed charts. I usually ignore Sun, Moon, Mercury and Venus unless I'm considering a one or two-day period involving an event, or unless they're at or approaching station (Mercury and Venus), closely angular or making an ingress by sign. I always take a quick look at Mars if it's slow or stationary and tying something together. I will glance at the outer planets, but mainly out of habit, not because I draw much that's useful from them.

But over the last few years I tend to focus almost exclusively on Jupiter and Saturn transits - especially the latter - because they give a more lasting impression of the tone of extended periods of time. The rest is mostly ephemeral in its impact. Jupiter and Saturn also give me a perspective on the "social context" of the period: Saturn as the "architecture" and Jupiter as the "indwelling dynamic," just something a bit fanciful I worked out to make more sense of them as "social" planets.

What are your thoughts on the relative dominance of these planets in a transit chart?

Transits

Until I took up Traditional Astrology, transits seemed to be very hit and miss, even using Saturn and Jupiter. The move into the Tradition taught me that transits have to be considered in the context of other, more general, astrological events. The problem is that none of those seemed to solve the problem either. I tried Solar Returns, Secondary Progressions, Primary Directions, even Solar Arcs, despite not liking Noel Tyl's approach. My 'hit' rate went up but not to where I wanted it to be.

More recently I've been trying Zodiacal Releasing, and I must admit I've had much better hit rates with transits since using them in the context of Time Lords (ones other than Dr. Who). These actually do allow all the planets to function at the transit level, providing that they are active..

For transits of the Moon we need a fairly accurate time, as well as date and that's not always available, though I've come across times when it is very telling. The striking of the iceberg by Titanic coincided with a square to the Ascendant by the Moon from the fourth house. The Moon ruled the eighth house of death and was in the fourth house of the end of the matter. Now I would think that the sinking of the Titanic is a major historical event, so the role of the Moon can't really easily be dismissed. There are other astrological factors, but for timing the Moon worked perfectly.

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=227809

The Moon as Lord 6 was in an active and close opposition to Mercury (Lord 8) at the time of LeiifA's near fatal car accident.

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=190689&page=92 post #457 and there's also a Mars transit of natal Moon active at that moment.

Again this accident was of major importance in his life, so we can't dismiss the Moon or Mars transit as being unimportant.

However there's an obvious issue. Would we spend out time looking for Moon transits when making a forecast? Both in the case of the Titanic and LeiifA's accident there are a series of factors but I think it is possible to identify 'risk' periods from the astrological background that might make us look more closely. That being said, I don't spend my time doing it LOL.

However, my point is that just looking at one or two planets may obscure those situations where a combination of astrological factors point to something happening, including transits of the faster planets. A transit of the Moon per se may have no effect at all. In combination, it might well be a crucial explanatory factor.

Saturn and Jupiter events occur much less frequently, so looking at them makes it easier to pick out possible major events. They are the bedrock of Mundane Astrology for that reason and their cycles give us fairly nice chunks of life to examine. I don't see Jupiter and Saturn as 'social planets'. I don't distinguish them from the other classic five, after all there's nothing 'social' about Saturn LOL.

So I'm not disagreeing with you that Jupiter and Saturn can signal major events by transit but so can all the classical planets, providing we put the transits in the context of wider astrological events.

Minderwiz said:

Saturn and Jupiter events occur much less frequently, so looking at them makes it easier to pick out possible major events. They are the bedrock of Mundane Astrology for that reason and their cycles give us fairly nice chunks of life to examine. I don't see Jupiter and Saturn as 'social planets'. I don't distinguish them from the other classic five, after all there's nothing 'social' about Saturn LOL.

So I'm not disagreeing with you that Jupiter and Saturn can signal major events by transit but so can all the classical planets, providing we put the transits in the context of wider astrological events.

Click to expand...

Thanks! As always, your input is thought-provoking. I still need to wrap my head around time lords; I understand the concept but haven't practiced with it at all. I wasn't interested so much in getting down to the exact timing of events and trying to predict them, I was more interested in the "stage-setting" potential for something to manifest. With the faster-moving planets, the "window of opportunity" passes fairly quickly. I usually look at the transits of the slower-moving planets first and, if things look interesting, I "back up" into the swifter transits to look for reinforcement. I don't disagree that if the Moon is in a highly sensitive spot it can act entirely on its own (which is why I mentioned angularity and ingresses, although I'm sure there are additional considerations) but I might think it more frequently equates to a "bad mood" than an iceberg encounter.

It seems to me the "social planet" idea came from the emergence of psychological astrology. The "personal planets" are close to the Earth, at least figuratively, while the so-called "transpersonal planets" are very remote, so the mid-range is filled by Jupiter and Saturn (with Mars as "facilitator"), and "social" arises from the interactive aspects of bringing the private universe into engagement with the broader "generational" one. I can see that Saturn might be considered "social" if it relates to "oppressive government practices," for example, especially if Mars sticks its nose in. I'm not really trying to defend any of this since I too see far more value in the traditional approach, I was just looking for some practical insights.

Barleywine said:

Thanks! As always, your input is thought-provoking. I still need to wrap my head around time lords; I understand the concept but haven't practiced with it at all. I wasn't interested so much in getting down to the exact timing of events and trying to predict them, I was more interested in the "stage-setting" potential for something to manifest. With the faster-moving planets, the "window of opportunity" passes fairly quickly. I usually look at the transits of the slower-moving planets first and, if things look interesting, I "back up" into the swifter transits to look for reinforcement. I don't disagree that if the Moon is in a highly sensitive spot it can act entirely on its own (which is why I mentioned angularity and ingresses, although I'm sure there are additional considerations) but I might think it more frequently equates to a "bad mood" than an iceberg encounter.

Click to expand...

I agree with your points here. It's a matter of narrowing down to a manageable period to examine. The use of the (relatively) slow planets is a way of doing that. As is your idea of using the stations for the (usually) faster moving ones.

I picked the Titanic example as an extreme to make a point. I wouldn't normally expect transits of the Moon to produce death but then I wouldn't normally expect the Moon to rule the eighth, or in LeiifA's case the sixth. Even then I think we need much more in the way of additional testimony to the event happening.

Barleywine said:

It seems to me the "social planet" idea cam from the emergence of psychological astrology. The "personal planets" are close to the Earth, at least figuratively, while the so-called "transpersonal planets" are very remote, so the mid-range is filled by Jupiter and Saturn (with Mars as "facilitator"), and "social" arises from the interactive aspects of bringing the private universe into engagement with the broader "generational" one. I can see that Saturn might be considered "social" if it relates to "oppressive government practices," for example, especially if Mars sticks its nose in. I'm not really trying to defend any of this since I too see far more value in the traditional approach, I was just looking for some practical insights.

Click to expand...

I did think it was an odd choice of descriptor given your previous posts LOL. Yes it's perfectly possible for Saturn to represent a repressive or malefic government (simply by ruling the tenth house - where it might also represent an unpleasant employer) but I would see that as more of an accidental factor, that is relating to the specific chart under consideration, rather than ah inherent 'social' dimension of Saturn. I don't think that Astrologers who use the term in their work take it very seriously, in the sense of integrating it into their chart readings. They are also quite happy to take so-called generational planets such as Neptune and treat them as highly personal through transits, et al. Neither really seem to be useful distinctions. Perhaps it flows from a confusion of Mundane and Natal Astrology, where Saturn/Jupiter cycles or Neptune/Uranus cycles might be used to examine changes in society. That seems valid enough, though I don't use the latter cycle.

To then take those cycles or the individual planets and use them in a Natal examination is also valid but whereas they are 'social' in the mundane context they are 'personal' in the natal context and that distinction should be clear in the mind of the Astrologer.

Minderwiz said:

Yes it's perfectly possible for Saturn to represent a repressive or malefic government (simply by ruling the tenth house - where it might also represent an unpleasant employer) but I would see that as more of an accidental factor, that is relating to the specific chart under consideration, rather than ah inherent 'social' dimension of Saturn.

Click to expand...

You've touched on another point here (although I'm sure it's more relevant to psychological astrology than traditional). The southern hemisphere has been considered the "outer world" and the northern hemisphere the "inner world" (some of which comes from the idea of interaction with siblings, home, family, etc.) In the "natural" chart, the signs ruled by Saturn and Jupiter are the most "out there" of all since they're at the apex of the chart. Pisces is above the horizon too but it really has one foot on the threshold. This would seem to place them squarely in the realm of social emergence, at least in the modern system.

Minderwiz said:

I don't think that Astrologers who use the term in their work take it very seriously, in the sense of integrating it into their chart readings.

Click to expand...

I might think they haven't thought very deeply on the subject.

Barleywine said:

You've touched on another point here (although I'm sure it's more relevant to psychological astrology than traditional). The southern hemisphere has been considered the "outer world" and the northern hemisphere the "inner world" (some of which comes from the idea of interaction with siblings, home, family, etc.) In the "natural" chart, the signs ruled by Saturn and Jupiter are the most "out there" of all since they're at the apex of the chart. Pisces is above the horizon too but it really has one foot on the threshold. This would seem to place them squarely in the realm of social emergence, at least in the modern system.

Click to expand...

Yes, we're in another Modern v Traditional contrast of ideas. In this case I don't think it's quite as dramatic as other situations.

In Hellenistic Astrology the Southern Hemisphere is seen as the world of Spirit, and therefore thought, action, and consequently social interaction, whereas the Northern Hemisphere is the world of Fortune or fate, so there is a connection between the Modern view and the Traditional view, which seems to have lasted through time. We would expect some embelishments and changes but in this case the root of the modern view is clearly there in the tradition.

There's some difference in the second part, the 'natural'' placement of the signs in the charts. Where Saturn and Jupiter come into this depends this natural look. T

Hellenistic and Medieval Astrologers tended to see the Ascendant naturally falling in Cancer. That would put one of Saturn's signs in the Descendant and one in the eighth house (just above the horizon). The eighth is inconjunct the Ascendant and doesn't have great social connotations. The seventh relates to relationships and therefore does have social implications.

The other is the quite separate idea of the planetary joys. This has Saturn joying in the twelfth house. It's above the horizon but it's not really in a good place to be social. It is however a diurnal planet, it's happiest out there in the sunshine LOL.

There's a shift over the history of Astrology, which given the disjunct nature of Western Astrology is not in any way surprising. I'm not claiming that the Traditional view is correct, merely that there's a subjective element in how the chart is viewed and that has changed over time.

Barleywine said:

I might think they haven't thought very deeply on the subject.

Click to expand...

Minderwiz said:

There's some difference in the second part, the 'natural'' placement of the signs in the charts. Where Saturn and Jupiter come into this depends this natural look.

Hellenistic and Medieval Astrologers tended to see the Ascendant naturally falling in Cancer. That would put one of Saturn's signs in the Descendant and one in the eighth house (just above the horizon). The eighth is inconjunct the Ascendant and doesn't have great social connotations. The seventh relates to relationships and therefore does have social implications.

Click to expand...

This seems to be the crux of it, then. If Aries isn't rising, then Saturn and Jupiter as sign rulers aren't "culminating," so their hypothetical supremacy in the social arena unravels somewhat.

Barleywine said:

This seems to be the crux of it, then. If Aries isn't rising, then Saturn and Jupiter as sign rulers aren't "culminating," so their hypothetical supremacy in the social arena unravels somewhat.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that's the reason that for planets I prefer to use the 'joys'. They still have Saturn above the horizon but not very sociable. Ant that holds no matter what sign is on the Ascendant.

Minderwiz said:

Yes, and that's the reason that for planets I prefer to use the 'joys'. They still have Saturn above the horizon but not very sociable. Ant that holds no matter what sign is on the Ascendant.

Click to expand...

We may have a slight semantic disconnect going on here. I was thinking of "social" more in the sociological - or maybe socio-political - sense than as "let's go party!" Saturn is certainly challenged in the second sense but I think it can speak volumes in the first case. Just my opinion of course.

Barleywine said:

We may have a slight semantic disconnect going on here. I was thinking of "social" more in the sociological - or maybe socio-political - sense than as "let's go party!" Saturn is certainly challenged in the second sense but I think it can speak volumes in the first case. Just my opinion of course.

Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking of it in the 'lets go partying' sense but more in line with your view of a socio-political sense. However, even in that sense, Saturn is more a Hobbesian in terms of the need for society (that is for Saturn life on one's own is best but once there are several people the world threatens to war of all against all, and a life that is nasty brutish and short, unless people join together out of fear to set up a sovereign and live under his law) In Western terms Saturn is very much in the High Noon view of society.

Jupiter is more a Lockeian, where it's not fear that leads to government but a social contract for the betterment of all. A Social Contract that can be ended if the government doesn't do what the people want.

Both see government as being formed by a social contract but Saturn sees that as the outcome of fear and the government, once it is formed, has absolute power. Jupiter sees it more as a set of country gentleman forming a mutual help society and taking away the power from society's rulers if they don't deliver the goods.